-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Who is the one who must "prove"
- Thread starter Spirit of Light
- Start date
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, a reason doesn't have to include evidence/ proof. It can be subjective and just make sense. I.e. be of positive value.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, if you were to choose between these 2 or even name a 3rd option, what would your answer be:
My answer is as a skeptic that in practice I try to figure out the fundamental dimensions of human existence and experience and avoid what reality as a whole really is. What matters always end up being subjective. In a sense if we can agree on inter-human values I don't care what your position is on what reality really is.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Depends on what you intend to address.
In general, the truth value of a claim doesn't depend on whether it has a positive impact in our lives. But if what you intend to argue is not about the ontology of God but rather the functional value that believing in God might have, that is an entirely different discussion. And therefore, different facts would qualify as evidence.
Bird123
Well-Known Member
I have often seen someone say.
You must prove to me that your God exist. So the non believer claim that a believer must prove his or her personal belief.
But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?
So the challange will then be. Non believers can you prove my faith is untrue or false or can you prove that other peoples faith or religion is untrue or wrong?
And noi have no desire to mock you for not believing, feel free to disbelieve.
Maybe it is the disbelief in any sign of a God that make you unable to see God the way a believer do?
I would like to hear your take on this.
And remember, this is in the discussion area of RF, not in debate area
Burden of proof always rests on the one who SEEKS the knowledge. If you do not seek the knowledge, there is no need to find proof. If one really cares about the Real Truth, one will seek proof for themselves regardless of what anyone else says.
The picture changes if the goal is to convince others that what one says is true. If one is going to convince others, they will request the proof. This includes theists and atheists for they are exactly alike trying to convince each other of their beliefs.
For True Wisdom in this matter, let's look at what God is doing. God places truth all around us then allows us to Discover the truth for ourselves. Has God ever showed up to convince anyone of anything? God won't either.
With this in mind, I copy God. I will place truth in the world so it will be around for those ready to Discover it. Those that do not care to Discover will ignore it. On the other hand, they just might remember at the time truth becomes more important to them.
Control is one of those petty things mankind holds so dear. Any anger that is generated between theists or atheists comes from the inability to control. I say give up trying to control others and allow them to Discover on their own. I might point the way, however their journey needs to be their journey regardless of the direction they choose to take.
That's what I see. It's very clear!! Prove it, did you say??? The proof stares you in the face. You will Discover it for yourself in time.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, I tried to find Real Truth but I couldn't. So now I do without it.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Nicly said.
I used to gave a need to give my beat proof of the path i was on, but i found tjat it does not matter anymore. I am happy where i am today, and do not need to conquer the atheists any longer. That is just waisting time.
As long i am happy where i am religiously i dont ask for more.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
Can we agree on what's relevant, here, in RF-fantasy land? I'd say, only by accident; because you seem to me to enjoy making agreement on relevance harder to work for than I have interest in doing.
My "values" identify what I think is important. My "beliefs" identify what I think is true.
I believe that you and I are responding to each other here, in RF, within some number of instants of each other, even though we are in different time zones, hopefully on the same planet. If you have reason to believe otherwise, just say "otherwise" and I'll add you to my already long "Ignore" list and we can each give our separate attentions to other tasks. In other words: Although I realize that I've assumed something is true which may actually not be true, I can trash that assumption lickety-split without breaking into sweat to do so.
Given that assumption, I've gotta tell you up straight: the value of our exchange, from my point of view, started out pretty low, ... and it's gotten lower fast and doesn't appear to me like it's gonna increase anytime soon.
Bottom line: Sometimes, another person's position on what reality really is can--from my subjective point of view--be a helluva lot more important than what we think is important.
Terry Sampson
Well-Known Member
??? Then why did you start this crazy thread?
Eyes to See
Well-Known Member
I have often seen someone say.
You must prove to me that your God exist. So the non believer claim that a believer must prove his or her personal belief.
But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?
So the challange will then be. Non believers can you prove my faith is untrue or false or can you prove that other peoples faith or religion is untrue or wrong?
And no
Maybe it is the disbelief in any sign of a God that make you unable to see God the way a believer do?
I would like to hear your take on this.
And remember, this is in the discussion area of RF, not in debate area
I have no problem with trying to persuade a person of the rightness of a course or belief that is true. Also realizing that this may be a slow process for some. Many times it is more the way you act than what you say. Kindness and love, even in the face of the most bitter persecution and hatred can soften a hardened heart over time. Not everyone will change, but some will.
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
My last little nudge toward non believers??? Then why did you start this crazy thread?
just kidding.Honestly because i did hope any non believer has a good argument for why God does not exist. But i did not get it
But the discussion was fun anyway.
mikkel_the_dane
My own religion
Well, now try to combine the 2. I have and for me it ends with what is important and not what is true. What is true, is only important in the end and what is important, I have never be able to show as true.
I do accept if you do it differently.
And yes, I do believe that you exist independently of me. I just don't know if it is true. But it is important to me.
exchemist
Veteran Member
Maybe you don't.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Maybe you don't.
Surely you jest?
exchemist
Veteran Member
No. The argument about the the existence or otherwise of God has been going back and forth in philosophy for generations: Existence of God - Wikipedia
That is not true of Pegasus. You might usefully ask yourself why that is.
Koldo
Outstanding Member
Culture. Much of the world has been conquered by christian europeans, while greek culture became Disney movie material.
Where and when did the big debate concerning the existence of Pegasus happen? It didn't. The fact we don't believe that Pegasus exists has nothing to do with logical arguments.
Its easy to find truth, you just believe something is true and voila.
Amanaki, if I told you that I believe that there is such a thing as an Invisible Pink Unicorn, who cannot be detected by any of the means of science that we know of today -- could you prove that I am incorrect?I have often seen someone say.
You must prove to me that your God exist. So the non believer claim that a believer must prove his or her personal belief.
But if a non believer want to prove that God does not exist. Why is it not them who must prove religioues people are wrong in their personal belief? How come it is always the believer who have to be the one to prove their belief?
So the challange will then be. Non believers can you prove my faith is untrue or false or can you prove that other peoples faith or religion is untrue or wrong?
And no
Maybe it is the disbelief in any sign of a God that make you unable to see God the way a believer do?
I would like to hear your take on this.
And remember, this is in the discussion area of RF, not in debate area
If I then went on to assert that this Invisible Pink Unicorn has made it clear to me that all of the Abrahamic religions -- Judaism, Christianity and Islam -- are based on a falsehood told in 1650 BCE, once again, could you prove me wrong?
No, if I am to make such claims -- and expect to be believed -- it is up to me to provide evidence for my assertions.
Similarly, may I point out, Joseph Smith made some claims in the 1820s, that led to the creation of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latterday Saints (Mormons).
Mormonism originated in the 1820s in western New York during a period of religious excitement known as the Second Great Awakening. After praying about which denomination he should join, Joseph Smith, Jr. said he received a vision in the spring of 1820. Called the "First Vision", Smith said that God the Father and His son Jesus Christ appeared to him and instructed him to join none of the existing churches because they were all wrong. During the 1820s Smith reported several angelic visitations, and was eventually told that God would use him to re-establish the true Christian church, and that the Book of Mormon would be the means of establishing correct doctrine for the restored church.
Joseph Smith said the Book of Mormon was translated from writing on golden plates in a reformed Egyptian language, translated with the assistance of the Urim and Thummim and seer stones. Both the special spectacles and the seer stone were at times referred to as the "Urim and Thummim". He said an angel first showed him the location of the plates in 1823, buried in a nearby hill, but he was not allowed to take the plates until 1827. Smith began dictating the text of The Book of Mormon around the fall of 1827 until the summer of 1828 when 116 pages were lost. Translation began again in April 1829 and finished in June 1829, saying that he translated it "by the gift and power of God". Oliver Cowdery acted as scribe for the majority of the translation. After the translation was completed, Smith said the plates were returned to the angel. During Smith's supposed possession, very few people were allowed to "witness" the plates. (Adapted from Wikipedia)
Now, if this is all true, then it must mean that Mohammed was NOT the last Prophet -- that in fact Joseph Smith himself was (as is accepted by the LDS faith) a Prophet.
So, can you prove that this did not happen? If you cannot, does this pose a danger to your own faith? And if not, why not?
Spirit of Light
Be who ever you want
Unfortunately it is not like that in religion
one must constantly work on once own morality, speech, action and thoughts. So no belief in it self can only get you so far.It is the practice of the teaching that lead you toward the truth.
No, that is incorrect. Given that (according to the Christian religion) it has already happened that God has "stood in front" of His followers -- and performed miracles into the bargain -- it would seem obvious to me that He could do so again. There is no reason that I can think of that this was something that God could only do once.
So, if I met someone who appeared to be a man but who could do REAL miracles in front of me (for example, restoring the lost limb of a person sitting in a wheel chair beside us), you may take my word for it I would be so impressed that it would be nearly impossible for me NOT to believe it. And if He did it twice, or three times -- with different people and different limbs -- and also turned the water in my swimming pool into a nice Chateau Margaux wine -- there'd be no stopping my belief.
Unfortunately, none of these things happens.